it will be sufficient for consumers to aggressively explore alternatives to their products.
But that still costs the consumer time/money...
Trying to be relatively realistic here, I think one viable way to attenuate damage from Capitalism (because that's really all we're doing with things like anti-trust laws) is to ban public ownership of companies (or at least limit it to less than 50%). When the owner of something only cares about the money it brings, with no effective concern for what it brings to society, it can only hurt the long-term viability of a society. Here's a specific example from our world: when Multiple Master technology couldn't be a cash cow, it got axed; it could have made some money if targeted to a niche (at a higher price), but it couldn't make enough money fast enough for shareholders to be able to buy their yachts now, dammit! Culture lost out.
@charles ellertson:If not, stop using such nonsense sayings.
Note the context: I was specifically responding to the post by Hrant Papazian above mine. So, I was simply admitting his basic point for the sake of argument - not attempting to make a detailed statement about what is the optimum method for a corporation to provide ROI to its shareholders.
Nowadays there are fairly good and cheaper alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator and Acrobat, especially on Mac. But in desktop publishing realm we still have just InDesign or Quark to choose. Anyway, there are some applications which could improve and take customers from ID/QX.
I suggest typophiles to try or at least follow the development of: Nisus Scriber, Mellel, Scribus, iCalamus, iStudio Publisher, Cenon and Swift Publisher. In a near future, maybe some of these could face ID in specific niches (I am somewhat otimistic about the first two).
^^ perfect time for a merging of Gimp/Inkscape/ and one of the above having all offered as a open source high quality design suite.
@hrant:to ban public ownership of companies (or at least limit it to less than 50%)
While I don't want to derail this thread into a political discussion, I do need to note here why this is a completely unrealistic suggestion, however meritorious it may seem.
The reason we have laws that create things like limited liability corporations is because nations needed to foster the growth of large enterprises that could build larger wooden sailing ships than those available to other nations. Flash forward from the rivalry between Britain and Holland to the present day of tanks, airplanes, submarines, and intercontinental ballistic missiles and the nuclear warheads that adorn them, and you can see why anything that throttled corporate growth would be perceived as conflicting with national survival.
Quadibloc -- you really need to understand return on assets (ROA). Much better tool than ROI.
See, for example,
Although I'm not a professional investor, and thus some of that article you pointed to goes over my head, I do agree that return on assets is a very fundamental measure.
If I'm setting up a small business - say a fast food restaurant - return on assets is really what I'm interested in, although it likely will be the same as ROI. Of course, though, how much of my own hard work goes into the business for each dollar I make will also matter.
So in the case of a company like IBM or Apple, return on assets says how profitable the company is in the "real world", while ROI is pushed up or down by the effect of the whims of the stock market on share price.
But if I'm playing the stock market, those whims affect me; ROA is a fundamental which guides me to the long-term value of an investment, but ROI is my direct goal.
As it happens, I've been trying to find out what the Greek version of the Baudot/Murray/ITA-2/5-level teletype code is... and that led me to find out that the Greek telecommunications company OTE is in jeopardy, despite being profitable and well managed - because it has the misfortune of being located in a country whose people may end up not being able to afford to pay their phone bills (the impact of the Greek financial situation on them is actually more complicated than that, this is a gross oversimplification) - and so we see that the markets are not "fair", even if they are in one sense the most fair thing there is.
Albert, to answer your question: No, as of v9.5.1, Quark still doesn’t give access to Stylistic Sets.